This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 27, 2012, August 27, 2014, August 27, 2017, and August 27, 2019. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The "The Valiant Five" probably is less used than "The Famous Five". But, both are used. And, since this artcle is named "The Valiant Five", it seems that term must be used as the standard everywhere in wikipedia, including on the individual women's pages. The term "Famous Five" should appear as the alternate name, in each article. I wouldn't object to changing this, but if you do, please do everywhere, and be consistent. -- rob 5 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)
This article is well-written in a precise and accurate manner. The writer is successful in providing the reader an unbiased view of the events that the “Famous Five” were involved in. However, it should be considered that the article is quite short and lacking certain details. An example would be more detail on social context, as in conditions for women in this time period. The article is successful in demonstrating the impact that the “Famous Five” had on women’s rights. In this article it is not explained why these five women created the petition or why there was so much political resistance. A reader may be left with questions on how the “Famous Five” achieved their goal. The article demonstrates the idea that public opinion on the “Famous Five” differed at the time. Yet, when it is mentioned that some people are “disturbed” by some of the women’s opinions on other issues, the statement is not explained and it would be beneficial to have more detail on this point. The article provides accurate dates and gives the reader a general overview of the achievements of the “Famous Five”. The article demonstrates this information with an appropriate level of language and proficient vocabulary. There are links provided for each individual member of the “Famous Five” yet practically no information about each woman on this article page. It could be considered useful to add background information on these women as to how they joined together to become “The Famous Five”. On this particular page there is no detail whatsoever to their age and how they came to be known as a group rather than different activists with similar views. The article does list its references however, there are still some citations needed within the article. There are some high-quality visuals of statues made in honour of the “Famous Five” but no pictures of the women as they were living. The visuals are more focused on symbols of memorial of the women rather than insight into how they were in their time of activism. This could be a welcome addition to the article. An external link is given of the “Famous Five Foundation” yet it is not mentioned anywhere in the article. It should be considered to include more information on why the foundation was created within the article so that the reader may understand why the external link is included. It is mentioned what each member of the “Famous Five” did in their respective careers, yet more information could be added to any further achievements after they were successful in the “Persons Case”. This could possibly include why it was decided to make them “honorary senators” as well as how they became members of activism and political change. The article has been made accurate as well as to the point but some effort could be made to make it more detailed and interesting for the reader. The introduction of the article is not laid out particularly well as the information on the petition is thrown together in the first paragraph rather than laid out in any certain structure. This can be rather confusing to read and understand. Overall, the quality of the article could be improved in length and detail yet its comprehensiveness is relatively satisfactory. The coverage of the topic is general and could use some improvement to make it more informative as to who the “Famous Five” were as a group. The referencing is mostly completed with just a couple citations missing. Although there are links provided to give more specific information, it would still be an improvement to add detail to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcoutts12 ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I've added a "citation needed" to the term "Valiant Five". This article is the only place I've ever seen the term used. I just spent some time googling around, and the only use of the term that I found is this article itself. Does anyone have any citations to show the term "Valiant Five" is or ever has been used to refer to them? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 03:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I have again deleted the incorrect information posted by Rcoutts, which stated that any five people can petition the Supreme Court to hear a constitutional case. This is, quite simply, wrong, as I previously indicated. First of all, there is no mention of the Supreme Court of Canada in the BNA Act (now the Constitution Act, 1867). The Act simply gives the Parliament the power to create a "General Court of Appeal"; there is certainly no mention of the petition power mentioned by Rcoutts. The text of the Act is availalble here: see s. 101. That is the only reference to the Court. Second, the power to refer questions to the Supreme Court is set out in the Supreme Court Act, as discussed in the article on reference question. It is solely a power of the federal Cabinet, not of individual citizens. The Famous Five's petition was to the federal government, asking the Cabinet to refer the matter to the Supreme Court; it was not a petition to the Supreme Court itself. Finally, there is already a detailed article on the Persons case on wikipedia, to which I have previously posted a link in this article. This article is about the Famous Five themselves, while the other article is about the court case. When writing for wikipedia, it is recommended that articles not be overlapping to the extent that Rcoutts' post does - each article should provide distinct coverage of a particular issue, with cross-references to other, related articles. Given these defects in the post, I have deleted it entirely. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 13:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
When did the term The Famous Five, as used for these individuals, first come into use? I see no reference to that specifically, and since the women were working on different issues I wonder at what point someone decided to name them that.
There is, apparently, a commemorative plaque in honour of The Famous Five in the lobby of the Parliament Building in Ottawa, but I have not found out what it actually says on it. Suemcp001 ( talk) 02:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I removed one example, but the writing in this article seems uncomfortably close to hagiography. Also, if "Famous Five" is some sort of standard name for the group, shouldn't it be capitalized? And it definitely shouldn't be "famous 5". -- Khajidha ( talk) 12:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)